Which part of the USA Nuclear Triad was More Effective?




View Poll Results :What was the most effective part of the Nuclear Triad that protected the United States during the Fo
Strategic Bomber Force 0 0%
Land Based Missiles 0 0%
Sea Launched Missiles 8 72.73%
They werent needed: Our regular forces ensured the peace. 0 0%
All were needed: All were equal in effectiveness 3 27.27%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
June 19th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 

Topic: Which part of the USA Nuclear Triad was More Effective?


Ok Cold war heros...we dont tend to think about it as much anymore...but of the three Nuclear Parts of the Triad (Airplanes that delivered Bombs, Land based Missiles in Silos, or Submarine Launched Missiles) which of these were the most effective at keeping the former Soviet Union at bay?

Just a honest opinion is fine..but state your reasons for your opinion please. As always...meanys will be rooted out...by the roots.


My contributions: The most effective part of the Triad was...the sea launched missiles from submarines. That underseas fleet of moving silos made more headaches for the russians to try and track than anything else our forces had to offer. And they just got better...as the years went by.

Yep..it was the Submarine launched Missiles!
June 19th, 2004  
Marksman
 
 
Submarines especially,they have that manuverability that is needed and posibility to cover in deep sea,idk if you remember during the cold war four russian submarines with nuclear torpedoes came from russia trought the pacific ocean undetected to cuba.My point is that typhoon type submarine can deliver its WMD's from north pole everywhere in the world.So im sticking on to submarines
June 19th, 2004  
1217
 

Topic: Re: Which part of the USA Nuclear Triad was More Effective?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Conley
The most effective part of the Triad was...the sea launched missiles from submarines. That underseas fleet of moving silos made more headaches for the russians to try and track than anything else our forces had to offer. And they just got better...as the years went by.

Yep..it was the Submarine launched Missiles!
I think you're right. The great thing about the subs was (is) that if you attack the US, you know that even if you level the country completely before the US can react, the subs will level your country anyway.
--
June 19th, 2004  
Gunner13
 
 
I would have to go with the Ballistic Missile Subs as well, although you use present tense, as all three legs are still operational and needed.

I don't think the Soviets were ever effective in tracking any of the USN or UK Boomers for any length of time. Most of what I have read indicates that any tail by a Soviet sub lasted only a few hours - as compared to the days and weeks that the USN attack subs were able to tail the Soviet missile boats.
June 24th, 2004  
Big_Z
 
 
Well im just adding baggage but yea the subs.. They held the most amount of nukes and could ride a russians subs ass intill they felt the need to stop without them having a clue. They would actually play games with them and ping them to let them know that we were sitting right on their asses. Just to let them know who the boss was.
June 24th, 2004  
Redleg
 
 
Agree with the rest of you, Subs!

(and the fear of the Norwegian Field Artillery of course )
June 24th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
Mainly sea lunch Mobile platforms, but all played a big role.
June 26th, 2004  
silent driller
 
 
I'm gonna say sea launched missles. They would give less reaction time if they were used.
December 3rd, 2004  
airmanpatroler
 
 
Im going to say bombers because it gives us time
December 3rd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The submarine fired missiles were safer than bombers (no anti-aircraft network to worry about), but capable of launch at closer proximity to the target. Also capable of firing both Balistic, ICBM, or Cruise Missiles. That'd be my vote.